This is both my personal learning project and my contribution in the struggle to confront the ongoing Republican/ libertarian assault on rational science and constructive learning, as manifested in their malicious strategic Attacks on Science ~ A collection of articles, scientific resources, plus my own essays and indepth critique of various presentations from unidirectional-skeptics ~ Hopefully a resource for the busy, yet discerning, student who's concerned about the health of our Earth

Pages

Sunday, January 1, 2017

#4 Debating Republican Disconnect From - Climate Science History

A good way to continue this debate is to first take a moment to review the milestones of Climate Science achievements. This will offer a more realistic portrait than E.M.’s assessment: “Climate science (in the scope of science) is relatively new”The list starts with Joseph Fourier discovering the greenhouse effect in 1824 and was compiled by Dr. Spencer Weart the retired Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics.

After the list I will return to the above sentence and its related paragraphs.

The history of climate science goes back to the early 1900's. This section contains a chronological listing of relevant climate science discoveries and events related to anthropogenic global warming. The information here was compiled by Spencer Weart the retired Director of the Center for History of Physics of the American Institute of Physics.

▪Serious droughts since 1972 increase concern about climate, with cooling from aerosols suspected to be as likely as warming; scientists are doubtful as journalists talk of a new ice age.=>Public opinion

1975

▪Warnings about environmental effects of airplanes leads to investigations of trace gases in the stratosphere and discovery of danger to ozone layer. =>Other gases

▪Manabe and collaborators produce complex but plausible computer models which show a temperature rise of several degrees for doubled CO2. =>Models (GCMs)

1976

▪Studies show that CFCs (1975) and also methane and ozone (1976) can make a serious contribution to the greenhouse effect. =>Other gases

▪Deep-sea cores show a dominating influence from 100,000-year Milankovitch orbital changes, emphasizing the role of feedbacks. =>Climate cycles

▪Deforestation and other ecosystem changes are recognized as major factors in the future of the climate. =>Biosphere

▪Eddy shows that there were prolonged periods without sunspots in past centuries, corresponding to cold periods .=>Solar variation

1977

▪Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century. =>Public opinion

1978

▪Attempts to coordinate climate research in US end with an inadequate National Climate Program Act, accompanied by rapid but temporary growth in funding. =>Government

▪Third IPCC report states baldly that global warming, unprecedented since end of last ice age, is "very likely," with possible severe surprises. Effective end of debate among all but a few scientists. =>International

▪Bonn meeting, with participation of most countries but not US, develops mechanisms for working towards Kyoto targets. =>International

I would like to articulate now the ONLY point I was trying to make at any point of this discussion: AGW is real. That is clear. That is obvious. I am making no sort of denial of this fact nor am I being “disingenuous” by stating that we don’t fully understand the way the climate system operates over a long period of time… Climate science (in the scope of science) is relatively new and we certainly can and will improve our holistic knowledge in the subject in the coming months, years, and decades.

_____________________________

I’m curious, other than screaming headlines that don’t hold up under scrutiny - can anyone point out the last time something truly revolutionary and game changing has happened in climate science? Lindzen's Iris Effect certainly didn't pan out as advertised. Others?

I’ve spent decades trying to keeping up on the science (To be clear, I'm a layperson so it’s through judicious science reporting rather than comprehending the detailed science papers themselves.) and it seems to me its been nothing so much as a steady refinement. I know that the fundamental understanding I was taught in high school back in the early ‘70s remains our fundamental understanding today.

Only big change is the revolution in observational abilities, which have offered details never before imagined. Those have provided huge surprises about the nuts and bolts of our global heat and moisture distribution engine's fine details but no radical game changers. In fact, the increasingly refined instruments have shown that Earth Scientists are consistently erring on the conservative side compared to what’s actually unfolding upon our planet.

______________________________________________________

E.M. writes at #19a:

It’s not the funding I dislike, it’s the bureaucratic nature of the funding process and the lack of accountability that follows this funding. I would simply like to see a tightening in program oversight with measurable goals and a desire to actually create solutions; not an endless tap of funding that produces minimal results.

_____________________________

Such vague but damning insinuations. So many feel comfortable never producing concrete examples, but there they are gushing insinuations, suspicion bordering on the paranoia seems all they need. That’s not a constructive dialogue.

RECOMMENDED WEBSITES

11/29/2016 I started this blog to debate climate science contrarians, I've done my part, they, the intellectual cowards for their part have run off and hide within their hermetically sealed echo chambers, safe to continue broadcasting more stupidity mixed with anger and hostility rather than constructive learning.

Now this horrendous election. Its changed everything and this blog, not sure where it's going, eventually I need to start another one, one less intent on futility reaching out for what ain't there and more focused on presenting a different perspective for its own sake, and to hell with the rest of it, it's too heart breaking.

I see Dec 19th as a key date. If there isn't serious focused engagement of the public in numbers that surprise everyone, well the oligarch will have their way with us.

Americans need to let Trump know from the gitgo, we do not approve of his con job and he better not get too crazy because he's earned zero good faith or honeymoon considerations. We shall see.

{edited 12/11/2014}

I know there are too many typos, what can I say, eyes aren't what they were, I get rushed, and always did have a thing with transposing…{well, I also hated high school "english" classes... bad call that one.}. Doing the best I can with what I got. Embarrassing though it is, it's better than doing nothing. Besides, it's the issues and reasoning that we should be worrying about.

Though I'm in my own little world here, I'm also constantly learning and evolving and do get occasional feedback and when I reread stuff and find errors or omissions or garbage, I fix it. If it's major I'll acknowledge it with an 'edited' note, minor stuff I don't bother.

~ ~ ~

I hardly keep track of Anthony's latest antics (besides, with Sou on the job why bother - can't beat her insights). It's just me over here and I have more important things to do with my precious hours - still now that Anthony's luster has been wearing thin he's put his energy into discovering and honing new fresh faces to carry on the public show of the Republican/Libertarian strategic attack on science.

He seems to have transitioned into a ring-leader, perhaps mentor/coach would be better, producer? At least that's how Mr. Steele and his antics of the past year has gotten me to think about it. So in that regard this blog remains about WUWT's brand of thinking and logic and my struggle to understand the anatomy of the fraud they've perpetrated against mankind. {December 2014}

_____________________________

ok, now some recommended websites:

This blog was started in April 2013 and is written by an actual scientist so it has a refreshingly serious objective air to it, plus he does a good clear job of explaining complex issues.

Tamino, an acknowledged statistical/mathematical expert of the highest order, at Open Mind also does an excellent job of holding Anthony’s feet to the fire with clearly explained facts and math. Check it out:http://tamino.wordpress.com~ ~ ~

And of course, there is the excellent, most up to date internet depository of climate studies and information for the non-expert public.

Then there's RealClimate.org the scientist's commentary site. Run by working climate scientists intended to help the interested public and journalists sort through the complexities of the climatology. They provide "quick response to developing stories and provide the context" that is too often missing from public media's depiction. {But, you better be serious and have some real science education/understanding under your belt if you want to keep up.}

I remember back in da day, good websites/blogs were few and far between. But over the past years that's been changing to the point that it's impossible to keep up with them all. Here's an incomplete, and long overdue addition to my above list: